…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Me! Me!
…when I say that an act is ‘objectively right’ I am really expressing an emotion, though grammatically I seem to be making an assertion.
– Bertrand Russell
Emotional keiths
I wonder if keiths has considered meditation. That’s something that interested me at one time, as I think he may have heard. He could ask Patrick if he could join him on one of the latter’s zen and swim libercruises or something.
Emotional keiths
How would that make other people better?
keiths sez:
It’s worth noting that inveterate liar keiths – who either can’t or won’t restrict himself to the objective facts but regularly chooses to present his subjective opinion as if it were fact – is again lying about what someone other than himself feels.
I do not and have never felt uncomfortable when keiths (or Patrick, or anybody) taunts me about making “baseless claims” (or not providing “evidence” or whatever). Why would I feel anything like that? I’m only here for the fun of it. If anyone doesn’t like what I say, that’s their problem, not mine.
keiths is lying about my feeling/state of mind – and he must know that it’s a lie because he must know that he is not supernatural and cannot possibly be aware of my subjective reality (or that of walto or Mung or anyone else other than his own). He’s not that dumb, so he must be doing it on purpose.
Also it’s worth noting that he’s lying yet again about the “been unable to provide … ” part. We’ve already covered that many times, and we all know that “chooses not” can never be assumed to be the same as “can’t”.
Oh, and “baseless” is of course itself a one-word bit of lying propaganda. keiths is just a shitpot full of awful manipulation and misrepresentation.
just because keiths doesn’t like or personally agree with something posted, doesn’t make that something “baseless”. keiths would have to prove that it actually was baseless before he could use that term honestly, but of course keiths won’t (or can’t) do that – but that never seems to stop him from acting like the dishonest shitlord.
+1 🙂
Is that for me? Aww shucks, thanks!
The glass ceiling fell on keiths a long time ago.
Dos keiths just not understand mockery? Or is it that he just cannot believe anyone could possibly be mocking him?
keiths gets caught lying, again.
#LiarsForSkepticism
keiths, lying about “honesty” yet again:
He’s lying about the “strikes fear in the hearts”.
keiths must know that he’s lying about that — because he must know with absolute certainty that he cannot see into the “heart” of anyone, not even metaphorically — but he won’t or can’t resist telling that lie anyways.
IF the rules were as keiths seems to wish they were (support-or-recant-or else) then keiths would be the first to go.
I vote the latter.
Poor baby. He has so far to fall from his self-appointed pedestal.
No surprise, Patrick has now joined the liars-for-skepticism club:
Evidently, Mung said nothing of the kind. Patrick is indulging himself in a pointless lie, and he must know it’s a lie, because he must know that he can’t read Mung’s mind to know who Mung thinks is “anathema” or not.
Unless Mung actually has given Patrick an anathema-list — and that list contains “all people who want all claims supported” — Patrick could produce said list as evidence?
No? Thought not.
Who besides our resident moralist Patrick would even use the word “anathema” to begin with? Goddamned red-robed assholes with stakes and torches. Patrick must be absolutely thrilled to be in their company.
Patrick is really struggling with this “objective empirical evidence” stuff. I’m not sure he’s ready yet to be wielding that particular tool.
Just so everyone is clear about what is on the table.
keiths is, demonstrably, a liar.
Care to demonstrate it, Mung?
You are willing to assert that keiths has never lied?
Just so everyone is clear about what’s been conclusively established.
Mung is, demonstrably, a liar.
No, I’m not. I’m sure we all have at some point to some degree. I thought you had a point to make rather than just be a disphit. In terms of my interactions *here* with him and you its a strange things to say, Mung. Who do you think has been more honest here, him or you? Also, I’ll note the religious lens employed: Lie once and you’re a liar – but what happens if you tell the truth once? Do you see no asymmetry? It’s a ploy that catches only simpletons.
How many times is keiths going to be allowed to get away with his pattern of lying before he faces some consequence from his supposedly-skeptical bros? Here he is again, lying about what someone else feels:
keiths must know that he’s lying about that — because he must know with absolute certainty that he cannot tell what anyone else finds “painful”, not even metaphorically — but he won’t or can’t resist telling that lie anyways.
Isn’t there a single one of the dudebros who has the integrity to call keiths out for his lies?
Patrick?
DNA_Jock?
Richard?
Adapa?
Are you all such suck-ups that you can no longer be honest?
Why are you cowardly fuckers picking on Mung and not keiths?
That’s a rhetorical question, actually …
but any one of you could prove me wrong by stepping up to do the right thing and telling keiths to stop lying.
My reply to hotshoe is here.
No, he doesn’t. And that’s the problem.
+1
Dear Richard,
I tend to be very forgiving. I’m a forgive and forget kind of person. Water off a ducks back and all. But keiths lies constantly and repeatedly.
If I had a dog that kept pissing in my bed I wouldn’t just keep letting it piss in my bed. The warm feeling quickly wears off, and it stinks.
Neil,
Click here.
Speaking of lying, you still haven’t withdrawn your false quotemining charges.
Mung,
I’d be interested in hearing your answer to Rich’s question:
Sorry, Neil, you’re obviously correct (viz, above, keiths choosing to claim that nuh-uh, he was not lying, no siree bob).
So I don’t know how to interpret his bad behavior. Lying requires that one not only be stating as fact something which is not true in reality, but also that one knows that what one is stating is not true. And I have charitably assumed that keiths is merely lying – that he is in touch with reality and is aware of what the facts are – because that seems more normal than the other explanation. Which is that he’s dangerously deluded, that he’s made himself rabid with his “skeptic” megalomania.
It’s not as if I would ever trust him, either way. But lying is merely banal. Delusion to the point where he’s convinced himself he can genuinely read minds (over the internet, no less!) should be frightening to everyone who witnesses it, including keiths himself if he ever has any sane, self-reflective moments left.
I’ve been waiting for you to call….
I have a confession — when I see comments between keiths and Alan, my eyes glaze over and I tune out. It’s been going on for so long that I have no idea what they’re even arguing about most of the time. If it really bothered Alan, I suspect he’d respond to defend himself.
If you’re desperate for me to take a side, please lay out the points of disagreement in a single comment with explicit references to where you think keiths has lied. For you, I’ll review it all.
Cross-posting this here, since it’s relevant:
hotshoe, in Noyau:
hotshoe,
As DNA_Jock pointed out to you:
He’s right, hotshoe. It is a silly claim. All of us here, including your very own self, routinely make inferences about other people’s mental states based on what they say, how they behave, and what they write.
I maintain that Alan finds it excruciatingly painful to admit mistakes, and I have plenty of evidence to back up my claim.
hotshoe,
Since you are guilty of the same supposed “pattern of lying” as I am — inferring the state of mind of others from what they say, do, and write — are you asking for Patrick to call you out, too?
I accused you of quote-mining too! What, no demand for a retraction?
Excruciatingly? Hyperbole; thy name is Keiths! 😉
Hey, I got MY demand! Maybe yours is just lost in the mail or something.
Maybe it got mixed in with the wedding invitations. Some poor schmuck is going to show up without a tux.
But hyperbole is not on DNA_Jock’s/Patrick’s proposed list of mock-worthy sins for TSZ, doncha know.
So you can’t mock keiths for that.
keiths is fine, all fine, better than fine!
But he provided evidence for his assertion, making it so much better than just his opinion.
Just my opinion supported by what in my opinion is evidence sufficient enough to warrant/justify my opinion.
Mung,
Nobody ever believes you anyway, Mung.
Come on everyone. Group hug.
Then you don’t need a “rule” that gives you license to treat me like you already intend to treat me. Mung must defend his claims even though we won’t believe a thing he writes when he does so. Yep.
But keiths smells like a wet dog. 🙂
Mung,
Actually, I smell like a dry cat. She’s been sitting in my lap.
Mung:
We’ll start believing you again when you start demonstrating some consistent honesty.
Please — let NewMung out of the basement and lock OldMung down there!
ok, so you can’t be all bad. I’ll try to keep that in mind.
Yet again, keiths adding to his hoard of Self-Unaware points for his already unassailable hold on the title of Most Self-Unaware King of the “Skeptics”. I’m gonna have to start keeping an actual count just for my own records. How many more does that boy want?
It would be sad if it weren’t so funny.
Err, it would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
These people genuinely honestly believe they are the defenders of the True Skepticism from the barbarians at the gate, while they play with their toy swords and comic books.
keiths:
Mung:
She turned 21 this year. How old is your cat?
Liar-mindreader keiths is lying again about what I like/don’t like, in the Burden Tennis thread.
I’ll leave it to any interested witness to look for the specific comment – because I think it’s tedious to repeat every lie that shitlord tells.
Hypocrisy, thy name is ‘hotshoe’.
That can’t be good for the self-image.
A 21 year old cat? Have you ever thought that the reason you smell like a dry cat is that your cat is mummified?
Last glimpse I had of NewMung he was being carried of kicking and screaming by a number of portly men in robes and hats who were “going to make a better skeptic and therefore a better person” out of him.